<p>What is it that bewilders you, JHS? Perhaps, a couple of things you misunderstood such as my point about higher early applications at Chicago’s competitors.</p>
<p>I have to agree with JHS here - I’m confused by Xiggi’s posts. When assessing the “moral supremacy” of one early plan to another, the baseline question is: what offers applicants the most choice? </p>
<p>In a more perfect world, there would be no early policies whatsoever. In the current world, unrestricted EA offers more choice than ED or SCEA. As the moral goal would be to maximize choice for applicants, even if it comes at the cost of admissions offices’ labor, unrestricted EA > other early policies. I don’t agree with Phuriku’s vehemency, but the general assertion is sound.</p>
<p>Xiggi’s claims, on the other hand, aren’t clear to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. xiggi, for the most part I really value your posts, even when I disagree with them. You are a passionate thinker and writer, and you generally know your stuff. But, in your recent posts . . . you had a point about higher early applications at Chicago’s competitors? Where? Not only did I apparently misunderstand it; I think I failed to perceive that you were addressing the topic. </p>
<p>phuriku addressed it, basically claiming that some of the ED schools were trying to create a climate of fear that would drive more people to apply ED. That’s a little much for me, although it’s true that for a number of years the norm in my generally affluent, high-education-value community has been for educationally ambitious kids to apply somewhere ED (or SCEA) as a matter of course. And it’s an odd charge for a Chicago partisan to level, since one of the elements of Jim Nondorf’s master plan seems to be drawing an ever larger percentage of the ultimate enrolled class from the EA pool, thus driving more and more applications to EA. So in a sense Chicago is peddling the same drugs, although its EA admission rate (especially its athlete-adjusted EA admission rate) is not so different from its overall admission rate as to engender fear.</p>
<p>The thing is, EA is still a good deal for students. And the main reason I think Chicago’s EA numbers have rocketed is that as the college has gotten more popular, more applicants are figuring out what a good deal it is (along with the similar deal at MIT and other places).</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet, ED is the best deal for <em>some</em> students, who take the restrictive nature into account and still decide to apply because they compete in a significantly smaller pool and their odds of getting in significantly improves. That’s all part of the bargaining. I totally agree with xiggi’s saying that “one can compile selected data and extract the numbers to support almost any point”. If one really wants to, he/she can argue EA is morally inferior to those that don’t have early admission. </p>
<p>
I don’t see how that says anything about financial viability. The EA allows you to get into schools that you are pretty happy with early while at the same time still lets you try your luck at places like Harvard/Yale/Stanford. That alone is enough to explain the size difference between EA and ED pools.</p>
<p>JHS, I addressed the issue of “moral” superiority by claiming that ALL schools use the enrollment devices that fit their situation the best. In so many words, I do not buy that Chicago, or MIT and Georgetown, are more morally virtuous than Duke or any other school that relies on ED. The objectives are one and the same, namely to grab a share of the very valuable students, be it academically or financially. </p>
<p>IMHO, where the morality takes a hit is when a school is misleading the applicants, and perhaps that is an element that could be improved. </p>
<p>In the meantime, restrictive admissions include as the name says restrictions. Those restrictions are, however, known to the applicants. We have had dozens (or more) discussions about the value and merits of ED, and enough has been written about it to know that the conclusion is that it works for some and not for others. My point is that it works very well for the very poor and the very rich, and a little less well for the huge middle class. Less well because there are a few handicaps for not being able to compare packages in May, but that handicap is not the same as being a prisoner as applicants can reject the offer and toss their hat in the RD will all other schools. </p>
<p>As far as the number questions, I mentioned that the early applications at the most notable competitors of Chicago were not necessarily smaller. Looking back at the past decade, I think that schools with large ED applicants (think Penn) fit that example, but my point was about ALL the restrictive admissions tools, including SCEA. My reference point were made by relying on memory from the years I followed the various admission cycles with more dedication. In so many words, I was comparing the numbers of Chicago versus HYPS et al. My answer was not a DIRECT rebuttal to Invasion’s posts about the size of the ED pools, because my point is that the ED and SCEA are part of the same group of ED plus REA. </p>
<p>In conclusion, I repeat that I was responding to Phuriku’s and Invasion’s posts. And the basis of that reply is that the early admissions processes are determined by the objective of the schools, and that they all are exercises in compromises, and that none is universally superior or inferior to the rest. Morally or technically. </p>
<p>All of the above is also subject to personal interpretation.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter whether EA is “better” for UChicago. I never denied that UChicago is self-interested. What matters is what is better for the applicants, and in that regard, EA is unquestionably better.</p>
<p>
Also keep in mind that if you do this at an Ivy school, you automatically forfeit all chances at another Ivy League (because they share with each other who has backed out of an ED agreement, even though they don’t necessarily give out the same amount of aid).</p>
<p>Even at a non-Ivy, it’s another unnecessary hoop to go through if financial aid is a concern. ED decisions only come out a few weeks before RD apps are due, giving applicants little time to appeal, and little time to decide whether or not to actually withdraw from ED - and if they do decide to, there’s no going back. ED creates a lot of inflexibility for the sake of higher yield; EA and aggressive marketing don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is no longer correct --if it ever was! I invite you to search CC for the numerous discussions on this precise subject. In the past the issue was nebulous; schools such as Columbia shared how they’d RELEASE a candidate only to lower ranked schools. Others did not offer much guidance. Later, the Common Application organization added some language that removed the necessary steps of obtaining a release, and removed much of the undue anxiety. The bite of the binding agreement has been dulled for almost all schools. and obviously for all the schools that accept the Common Application. Take a look at the form. </p>
<p>All a student has to do is review the financial aid package and notify the ED school that the aid is not sufficient. The ED process ends and the student is welcome to pursue all other schools, safe and except the school that was turned down in the ED round. That is the NOT the same as backing out of an ED agreement, or worse, the same as playing games by not withdrawing the rest of the applications. and playing the “negotiating” game. </p>
<p>Again, ED is not for everyone, and it involves restrictions. It is all about weighing the benefits against those restrictions. For some, ED is a boon.</p>
<p>So I called it: 55%</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>xiggi is right about ED but (a) that’s a lot easier said than done, turning your back on a college you really wanted to attend, and that has accepted you, without another offer in hand to compare with it, and (b) many/most high school counselors won’t see it that way, and will fear (with some justification) that future ED applicants from their school will be disadvantaged if one student turns down an offer that isn’t grossly insufficient. EA is the same thing, except you can hold the offer in hand until you have something to compare with it. Humans are naturally fairly risk-averse, and xiggi is ho-humming what would seem to most college applicants like an enormous risk. And why are applicants in the position of having to face that risk? Because the colleges make that the rule; because it puts pressure on the students to say yes.</p>
<p>And it works. Most colleges don’t publish their ED offers/enrollments, but some do, and I have never seen a college that had more than one or two people turn down an ED offer. It’s very tough. </p>
<p>I don’t know why xiggi is so in love with ED all of a sudden. Granted, rich kids love it. Many people think that’s why it persists – it’s affirmative action for the rich and plugged-in. Even for non-rich kids (and non-abjectly-poor kids), it isn’t as bad as it’s sometimes made out to be. It’s just a little scummy, especially since there’s an alternative that’s a lot less scummy.</p>
<p>Back at the ranch . . . I still have no idea what argument xiggi is making about early admission numbers. Yes, back in the day, when HYPS got twice-plus as many applications overall as Chicago, the ones that offered SCEA (which, after all, is EA, not ED) got slightly more early applications than Chicago did. Princeton, which had ED, not SCEA, got fewer early applications, about half what HYS did. In 2004-2005 (college class of 2009, my daughter’s class), Harvard had 23,000 applications overall, Stanford 20,000, Yale 19,500, Princeton 16,500, Cornell 24,500, Penn, 19,000 . . . and Chicago 9,000 and MIT 10,000. HYS each got around 4,000+ SCEA applications. Princeton got 2,000 ED applications. Penn and Cornell, each of which regularly admitted over 1,000 students ED, got around 3,000 ED applications each. And Chicago and MIT each got 3,000 EA applications.</p>
<p>Isn’t that pretty stark? Every single Ivy League school (and Duke) got significantly more applications than Chicago or MIT, but of the six ED Ivies plus Duke only Penn got more early applications, and that by a fairly slim margin. (And within a couple years that was no longer true.) Stanford got 20% more applications than Princeton overall, and 120% more early applications. Duke got twice Chicago’s applications overall, and half its early applications. Doesn’t that look like applicants preferred any form of EA over ED?</p>
<p>
If all the applicants care is about getting into Duke, ED is the best! Where else can you find close to 30% admit rate for such an elite school?</p>
<p>Nobody points a gun to anyone’s head to apply to Duke. Duke presents an option with a very attractive admission rate but also a string attached; UChicago presents another option that also lets you know early but with no strings attached; however, you don’t get as much of a bump to your chance since the pool is considerably larger. What I see are just choices, not fear and pressure. You don’t feel contracts are just some morally inferior devices, do you?</p>
<p>Sam, it only works that way for applicants whose interest in Duke is not price-sensitive, which as a practical matter excludes almost everyone who can afford to pay x for college, where $0 < x < Duke Full COA less student earnings and subsidized loans (say, about $200,000). If a difference of $5,000/year in out-of-pocket cost or unsubsidized borrowing might send you to UNC or WashU instead of Duke, you have a hard time applying to Duke ED, and the ED program looks like a way to screw you, not just a deal you are turning down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://admissions.duke.edu/images/uploads/process/Class2016Profile.pdf[/url]”>http://admissions.duke.edu/images/uploads/process/Class2016Profile.pdf</a>
16 turned down Duke’s ED offers last year. Yes, it’s tough to get out and it’s supposed to be; one doesn’t need to be smart enough to get into Duke to know he/she can’t have his/her cake and eat it too. But it’s not unreasonably tough as 16 of them did get out.</p>
<p>
That’s why the ED pools are much smaller. People who don’t want ED are free to cross the ED schools out for the early rounds and apply to them RD instead and there are plenty of EA schools around for the early around. That ED pools are smaller is exactly reflecting how the free market is working. They won’t have to be “in the position of having to face that enomorous risk” if they don’t want to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JHS, why do you assume I am “so in love” with ED? Have you ever asked if I like one early process better than others. What I have written (and repeatedly) is that ED might very well the very best equalizer for competitive low SES students. Students with low or zero EFC can have much better results than otherwise, and without much of a financial risk. In this line, your “plugged in” takes a different dimension when students are made aware of the benefits of early admissions and coached to present an admission as early as possible. Hint? Look at Questbridge for the system I like the best. For others, my preference is the SCEA model. But none of my posts was meant to discuss the merit of one system over the other; I did, however, not agree that declaring one more “moral” than an another was warranted, and especially not in the hyperbolic tirade posted above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Am I really beating this to death or showing to be bent in shape? All I did was to comment on a prior post and shared that “A non-restrictive admission process should in theory attract a lot more applicants. Of course, not every school attracts large number of EA applicants. Without looking at the previous years, I will assume that the EA pool at Chicago might have been smaller than at many of its competitors for those past years.”</p>
<p>And I already explained that I remembered years in which Chicago had 3,000 early applicants and Yale and Harvard close or around double that number. Penn? a bit lower than 4,000. I was comparing early pools and not only ED versus EA but the early pool of Chicago versus the early pools at its competitors with restrictive early admissions. I think my statement quoted above was correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure what you mean by ho-humming about a certain risk. What risk is it? And, fwiw, the basic tenet is that the ED school should be a clear and compelling FIRST choice. If the financial aid, works that is wonderful. If not, nothing could guarantee that the financial aid will be better at the same school in May. So, the only loss is one of opportunity. </p>
<p>PS Nacac tracks the yield on early admissions. ED has a 90 to 99 yield rate, with the highest at the most selective schools. The data is the annual state of NACAC. Could be protected data but it is available there.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>If one is price sensitive and if the preliminary FA isn’t sufficient, he/she can withdraw from the school. The binding is more about the restriction after one concludes that it’s affordable and accepts the offer.</p>
<p>I agree that ED favors the rich but so does EA. All early admission favor the rich in the sense that they are more relevant for the well-resourced high schools and savvy and highly-educated parents that know those plans and start early.</p>
<p>There’s a difference between “affordable” and most affordable. That difference is why I couldn’t apply ED, I had to compare packages to find the cheapest one. It wasn’t an option. That’s why ED is unacceptable to me… It stifles the students ability to have more options and to compare, and so I believe only those who generally aren’t worried about cost apply, giving those students a greater chance to get in because they are less worried about affordability in their college selction. That’s why it favors the rich.</p>
<p>^isn’t really true. I mean let’s say you end up paying 5k more/year for same level education because you applied ED and got into two top schools, but you can afford it, it was your risk to take and you took it because you mitigated the risk of not getting into that second school.</p>
<p>If you can’t afford it then yeah just go somewhere else, but if you can afford it it’s just a bit worse, sure the risk didn’t pan out without a bad side but there was still a benefit to taking it even in retrospect.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why some on this board are defending the use of Early Decision. Early Decision is unacceptable to a lot of students. It puts students at a financial disadvantage. It is really that simple. Early Decision has no justifications and no merits whatsoever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@LearningLover,
But you’ve shot yourself in the foot! Yes, the boost in chances may very well offset the higher cost for several students. It’s just that the benefits of ED are unfairly skewed to those students at a financial advantage, since the risk (extra cost) is a lot less “riskier” to them. A financially disadvantaged student would therefore be less inclined to applying ED, and would therefore be forced into a more competitive pool, one that his more affluent peers could more easily avoid.</p>
<p>^I don’t accept that because the financial question is moot because if it is a true financial burden you can back out, in fact a 5k difference is more of a burden for poorer individuals so it’s easier to back out.</p>
<p>The reverse logic is always true so from the same perspective one can argue that the only people that are actually disadvantaged is the rich enough to pay full tuition because then at no point can they claim burden, whereas those that are poorer can actually do so with legitimacy and virtually any price point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a flawed argument. First of all, backing out is reserved for extreme cases. Since of all these colleges (claim to) meet full need, it’s extremely unlikely that a student would be offered less aid than he absolutely requires, as long as he can demonstrate the requirement. And as PAGRok remarked above, there’s a difference between “affordable” and most affordable. The affordable college may have provided enough aid for backing out to no longer be an option, but you may have missed out on better offers which you could have evaluated had you taken a less restrictive path. I was alluding to this kind of scenario, where backing out is no longer an option, but in opportunity cost, one would be paying more than one could have otherwise been paying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here (partly because of your convoluted last sentence, but mostly because your underlying point doesn’t seem to defend your point of view). Is it that the financially advantaged have less opportunities to back out? Well that’s great for them! That means they often get as much (or more) aid than they need to attend what we can safely assume is their top choice university! And that’s a disadvantage of being rich? That the financially disadvantaged are forced to back out more often due to poor aid gives them some sort of upper-hand? </p>
<p>Please realize that having to back out of an ED commitment isn’t intrinsically a good thing (as you’re making it sound)! It means that one is being forced to give up what is most probably one’s top choice university, due to poor aid.</p>
<p>I think you’ve just proved once again that the financially advantaged can better take advantage of ED (increase their chances of admission considerably), while the poor have to forfeit this advantage, either by not applying ED at all (so as to explore other options that may turn out to be more financially viable, something that the financially disadvantaged have more reason to do), or by being forced to back out (which, you claim, happens more often to the financially disadvantaged).</p>